Costco Apologizes For Bibles Labeled As Fiction At California Store

[Exophase]

There is evidence of life on a planet, namely Earth. Life on Earth is itself statistical evidence for life on other planets.
We have only observed about 10 planets closely enough to detect life, and so far we have about 10% of the ones we observed having life.
With trillions of trillions of planets in the Universe, it's not an unreasonable assumption that there is life on other planets. It's almost a certainty.

Let's say someone named their child saefsduifsdhfuisdlgfsdlgsgsgsdgfsdoghfdfidhdh. There are lots and lots of other people, surely someone else must also have this name. That's what your argument sounds like.

One could make a pretty compelling argument for the existence of life (putting aside exactly what "life" means) outside of Earth. But I don't think you're making a particularly good one. It's not enough to just say there are lots and lots of planets without at least trying to model the likelihood of the formation of life on any of them. This thread looks more like a bunch of handwaving than real statistical argument. Given that our understanding of how life came to be is kind of limited to begin with there are going to be differing viewpoints on this. The Drake equation has plenty of real criticism beyond people just not being comfortable with the possibility of aliens.

 

[JD50]

A "faith based assumption", according to how it is defined here, is a belief without evidence.

Who has said that they believe, without a doubt, that life exists on other planets? People have said that it's highly probable, but I don't believe anyone has said that it's an undisputed fact. You're comparing this to your belief in god. Do you believe, without a doubt, that god exists, or are you just saying that it's highly probable that god exists?

 

[Retro Rob]

Who has said that they believe, without a doubt, that life exists on other planets? People have said that it's highly probable, but I don't believe anyone has said that it's an undisputed fact. You're comparing this to your belief in god. Do you believe, without a doubt, that god exists, or are you just saying that it's highly probable that god exists?

They're not saying life exists, but they indeed believe it does. I'm saying that the standard of believe is evidence, as I would need it to believe in God, scientifically speaking.

If God isn't testable and is by definition ruled out, how can potential life on planet [insert name here] be testable?

I'm saying it takes as much faith to believe in God as it takes to believe we're not alone in the Universe. We've never encountered extraterrestrial life, nor have we physically encountered God or a god so both have the same amount of evidence...and that's none.

I don't doubt God exists. I believe a Creator is as real as you and I. I think we were deliberately created, and that's why I believe the way I do.

 

[alzan]

For example, a car doesn't need a sleek design for it to serve its purpose, yet, the auto maker gives it one anyway. This is specifically done to market the vehicle. Likewise, I don't think we're in need of a starry heavens, but I'd say it is there to draw people close to its creator when we contemplate it.

Just my opinion, though.

Somewhat off topic but:

You're certainly welcome to your opinion but your car analogy fails. Some cars are actually given sleek designs to make them more efficient, i.e. gas mileage.

Believe what you wish but I doubt that g-d simply made the universe to market himself/herself to us. Why bother with creating the universe when you can appear as a burning bush.

 

[Exophase]

I'm saying it takes as much faith to believe in God as it takes to believe we're not alone in the Universe. We've never encountered extraterrestrial life, nor have we physically encountered God or a god so both have the same amount of evidence...and that's none.

That's like saying it takes as much faith to believe that the sun will still exist tomorrow (taking a day to mean a unit of time and not related to the existence of the sun ) You haven't observed the sun tomorrow yet so there isn't evidence of it. But our understanding of physics and probability of the sun existing thus far gives us a lot of confidence that it'll be there tomorrow.

Believing in a God that very much resembles that of Judeo-Christianity is more like believing there's currently intelligent life on the surface of the moon than that's there's life anywhere. If this were true there we'd expect evidence that is missing, and it contradicts things we know about how life works.

 

[JD50]

They're not saying life exists, but they indeed believe it does. I'm saying that the standard of believe is evidence, as I would need it to believe in God, scientifically speaking.

If God isn't testable and is by definition ruled out, how can potential life on planet [insert name here] be testable?

I'm saying it takes as much faith to believe in God as it takes to believe we're not alone in the Universe. We've never encountered extraterrestrial life, nor have we physically encountered God or a god so both have the same amount of evidence...and that's none.

I don't doubt God exists. I believe a Creator is as real as you and I. I think we were deliberately created, and that's why I believe the way I do.

No, people are saying that they believe there is a high probability that life exists on other planets, while you are saying that you believe without a doubt that god exists. That is not even remotely close to the same thing. They are not saying that it's a fact that life exists on other planets. You are saying that it's a fact that god is real and he created us.

There is a huge difference between coming up with theories based off what we already know, and proclaiming something as a fact. You have a problem distinguishing between the two.

 

[Darwin333]

"Generally accepted" knowledge doesn't translate to truth.

You seem to be lowering your standard of evidence because you simply want to believe there is life outside this solar system. I think you're being a hypocrite.

Either there is evidence, or there isn't. You hold me to this standard, and I am simply doing the same to you.

John Lennox once said something I totally agree with: "2+2=4, but knowing that has never put 4 pounds into my pocket".

No one is claiming that there most definitely IS life out there, just simply pointing out the possibilities.

Its like me saying that it is probably raining somewhere on Earth right now. Do I have any evidence, no I do not and lets pretend that I can't possibly get any evidence. I have not stated a belief nor have I taken a leap of faith, I am simply making an educated guess based off of what I currently know.

You are trying to claim that me saying that it is likely raining somewhere on Earth right now is along the same lines as you saying that there IS a god. The two statements couldn't be more different.

As I said, I am not closed to the idea, but speculations and probabilities cannot be tested in this regard, so they mean nothing.

Wait, are you saying that something that can not be tested is meaningless? Do you really wish to go down that road Rob?

I mean, what if someone suspected I robbed the Comerica bank yesterday. I mean, we have evidence that people rob banks, so is speculation alone enough to get me arrested and tried?

No it isn't but I have yet to see this wildly held definitive belief in the scientific community that life does as an absolute fact exist somewhere else in the universe that you seem to believe exists. Could you please give me 4 or 5 examples, at the very least, so that I can at least join you in saying that they are stating something as a fact that they can not possibly prove (yet or perhaps ever)?

And as I said Rob, we aren't that special. We are made up of the most common elements in the universe. Every last element in your body used to be part of a star, a star that died long ago spewing the elements that would eventually make you, me, the planet and everything else. We are quite children of the stars so to say, made up of actual stardust. Pretty cool isn't it? As far as "just right", the planet has been drastically warmer and colder in the past yet life has thrived so that "razors edge" that you speak of isn't as close as you may think. Regardless, just because it is "just right" for us doesn't mean its the only possible condition in which life could evolve (nor does it mean the opposite). We have exactly ONE data point, who the hell knows what other conditions life might be able to develop in?

Another fun fact my friend, life has and continues to thrive in the harshest environments earth has to offer. We have found life in places that we previously KNEW that life couldn't possibly exist, yet it does. If life can thrive in the most extreme conditions our planet has to offer (which can get pretty damned extreme) who is to say that other life needs our "goldilocks" environment? Again, this is not me saying that I have faith that other life exists, it is me pointing out what might be possible.

 

[Darwin333]

If it's just a guess, that's fine, as I only have a guess as to what isn't out there.

But again, for all we know, this could be a one-shot-deal, as the conditions for life to even to begin to evolve are really non-existent when left to appear on their own, IMHO. I cannot logically and realistically credit all this to sheer "luck of the draw", which the evidence also doesn't support.

Luck is a supernatural force itself....you may as well say "God did it".

Actually, if given enough opportunities for something (that is possible) to happen the chances of it happening can start getting very very high. What you call luck I call probability and I disagree that luck and god are the same thing.

I don't know exactly why the Universe was created if it indeed was (which I believe, but for the sake of this discussion, I won't factually say it was), but I am under the opinion that it was left for us to marvel at, and wonder about who created it.

Thats an awfully dull reason for something so vast and marvelous as the universe. Even worse is that has to be the most arrogant thing I can think of, the entire universe was brought to be simply for us to look at...

For example, a car doesn't need a sleek design for it to serve its purpose, yet, the auto maker gives it one anyway. This is specifically done to market the vehicle. Likewise, I don't think we're in need of a starry heavens, but I'd say it is there to draw people close to its creator when we contemplate it.

Just my opinion, though.

So god made 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the universe hostile to us, and by hostile I mean would kill us instantly, to "draw people closer to him"? You do realize that Earth wouldn't be here if it wasn't for all of those other stars, or more specifically the ones that have already gone through their life cycle billions upon billions of years ago, right? Like I said, not only are we in the universe the universe is in us. We are made up of the stuff that came out of long dead stars.

A "faith based assumption", according to how it is defined here, is a belief without evidence.

Which "belief" is it that you think I hold? Do you honestly think that all of the people in this thread have been saying that there absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt IS life out there?

It isn't useless....we may not understand its use completely or at all yet. Those in science thought the Appendix was useless...UNTIL they understood it's purpose.

Oh we have a much better understanding of how "useful" its been to us than you think. OTOH it occasionally bitch slaps us as well, take that for what you will.

 

[Darwin333]

Let's say someone named their child saefsduifsdhfuisdlgfsdlgsgsgsdgfsdoghfdfidhdh. There are lots and lots of other people, surely someone else must also have this name. That's what your argument sounds like.

One could make a pretty compelling argument for the existence of life (putting aside exactly what "life" means) outside of Earth. But I don't think you're making a particularly good one. It's not enough to just say there are lots and lots of planets without at least trying to model the likelihood of the formation of life on any of them. This thread looks more like a bunch of handwaving than real statistical argument. Given that our understanding of how life came to be is kind of limited to begin with there are going to be differing viewpoints on this. The Drake equation has plenty of real criticism beyond people just not being comfortable with the possibility of aliens.

Sort of true....

OTOH, given the date that we currently have the only thing we can do is make educated guesses based on what little data we do have. Who the hell knows whose guess is right? The answer is, no one does, or will, until we get more data.

 

[Darwin333]

They're not saying life exists, but they indeed believe it does. I'm saying that the standard of believe is evidence, as I would need it to believe in God, scientifically speaking.

If they haven't said it then how do you know that is what they believe?

And we are making some really cool strides in this area (well, sorta....). The Kepler observatory has found actual earth sized planets orbiting sun like stars in the Milky Way. Extrapolating the data that it has discovered the scientists working on the project estimate something like 10 billion earth like planets exist in the "habitable zone" and orbit earth like suns just in our own galaxy. Thats pretty damn cool imho, hopefully they fix or replace it so that we can gather even more data.

 

[Retro Rob]

No one is claiming that there most definitely IS life out there, just simply pointing out the possibilities.

Fair point.

You are trying to claim that me saying that it is likely raining somewhere on Earth right now is along the same lines as you saying that there IS a god. The two statements couldn't be more different.

Well, ok. I cannot disagree with that.

Wait, are you saying that something that can not be tested is meaningless? Do you really wish to go down that road Rob?

I'm just pointing out that it seems posters such as yourself are willing to not apply the same strict standard of "testable, repeatable, predictable" evidence to the opinion life exists outside this planet, that you apply to the belief in a creator.

In other words, its logical to make positive speculation about ET with no evidence, but its delusional to the same with God.

I am just asking for consistency.

No it isn't but I have yet to see this wildly held definitive belief in the scientific community that life does as an absolute fact exist somewhere else in the universe that you seem to believe exists. Could you please give me 4 or 5 examples, at the very least, so that I can at least join you in saying that they are stating something as a fact that they can not possibly prove (yet or perhaps ever)?

I cannot provide examples, the best I can offer is what I've read and seen over the past few years. While they shy away from saying definitively, they almost elude to it by saying things like "with all the planets and stars, it would be highly impossible for life to NOT exists".

The implications are very strong in those sort of statements.

 

[JEDI]

~2yr anniversary, I bring thee the pic that's missing in the OPs post: